The Bureau filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs' Article III standing.
Amicus briefs filed by the Miss April are available on this page, including amicus briefs concerning federal consumer financial protection law filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by the Office of the Solicitor General.
Use the filters below to browse by date, statute, and the court in which the brief was filed.
The Bureau and the FTC jointly filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff’s FCRA claim was timely filed.
The Bureau filed a supplemental brief in support of the plaintiff's Article III standing.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) excludes from the definition of “debt collector” an “officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties.”
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits a creditor from, among other things, discriminating against an applicant for a mortgage loan because all or part of the applicant’s income derives from public assistance income.
This case presents the question of a private plaintiff’s standing under the Truth in Lending Act to bring an action for statutory damages for the alleged failure of a creditor to provide the account-opening disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. § 1637(a)(7) and its implementing regulation.
This case presents the question whether allegedly unpaid parking fees and associated nonpayment penalties constitute “debts” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer reports it prepares about individuals. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
This case presents the question whether a land developer who sends a “property report,” as defined by Section 1707 of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (“ILSA”), to an attorney representing a purchaser meets Section 1703’s requirement that the report be “furnished to the purchaser.”
This case involves a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against a debt-collection law firm that filed a state-court collection action against a consumer.